Alpha-Gal Syndrome in the Infectious Diseases Clinic: A Series of 5 Cases in Central North Carolina.

Background: Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) is a recently described allergy to galactose-α-1,3-galactose, an oligosaccharide present in mammalian meat. AGS can present with angioedema, urticaria, and anaphylaxis arising 3-6 hours after ingestion, although symptoms such as gastrointestinal distress, fatigue, and arthralgias are also reported. Because AGS appears to be associated with tick bites, patients may present to infectious diseases (ID) clinics for evaluation. Methods: We documented a series of 5 patients referred to the University of North Carolina ID Clinic between 2020 and 2022 for various tick-borne infections that were found to have symptoms and laboratory testing consistent with AGS. Patients were subsequently referred to the Allergy and Immunology Clinic. Results: Patients were referred to the ID Clinic for persistent symptoms following positive tick-borne disease testing or presumed tick-borne infection. All patients had an elevated alpha-gal immunoglobulin E and clinical presentation consistent with AGS. Common symptoms included episodic gastrointestinal distress (eg, cramping, nausea, diarrhea), fatigue, arthralgias, and subjective cognitive impairment, but a notable absence of severe anaphylaxis. Four patients were seen by at least 1 nonallergy specialist prior to referral to ID. Patients reported substantial improvement in their symptoms following dietary restriction. Conclusions: ID physicians should be aware of AGS as a cause of persistent, nonspecific symptoms following a tick exposure or tick-borne illness. Further research is needed to determine the prevalence of alpha-gal sensitization and AGS following tick-borne bites.

Seroepidemiology and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection among household members of food processing and farm workers in North Carolina.

Background: Racial and ethnic minorities have borne a disproportionate burden from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Certain essential occupations, including food processing and farm work, employ large numbers of Hispanic migrant workers and have been shown to carry an especially high risk of infection. Methods: This observational cohort study measured the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and assessed the risk factors for seropositivity among food processing and farm workers, and members of their households, in North Carolina, USA. Participants completed questionnaires, blood samples were collected, and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to assess SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. Univariate and multi-variate analyses were undertaken to identify risk factors associated with seropositivity, using generalized estimating equations to account for household clustering. Findings: Among the 218 participants, 94.5% were Hispanic, and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was 50.0%. Most seropositive individuals did not report a history of illness compatible with COVID-19. Attending church, having a prior history of COVID-19, having a seropositive household member, and speaking Spanish as one's primary language were associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity, while preventive behaviours were not. Interpretation: These findings underscore the substantial burden of COVID-19 among a population of mostly Hispanic essential workers and their households in rural North Carolina. This study contributes to a large body of evidence showing that Hispanic Americans have suffered a disproportionate burden of COVID-19. This study also highlights the epidemiologic importance of viral transmission within the household.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and risk factors among meat packing, produce processing, and farm workers

Meat packing, produce processing, and farm workers are known to have an elevated risk of COVID-19, but occupational risk factors in this population are unclear. We performed an observational cohort study of meat packing, produce processing, and farm workers in North Carolina in fall 2020. Blood, saliva, and nasal turbinate samples were collected to assess for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity were investigated using chi-square tests, two-sample t-tests, and adjusted risk ratio analyses. Among 118 enrolled workers, the baseline SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was 50.0%. Meat packing plant workers had the highest SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (64.6%), followed by farm workers (45.0%) and produce processing workers (10.0%), despite similar sociodemographic characteristics. Compared to SARS-CoV-2 seronegative workers, seropositive workers were more likely to work in loud environments that necessitated yelling to communicate (RR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.25–2.69), work in cold environments (RR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.12–2.24), or continue working despite developing symptoms at work (RR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.14–2.32). After adjusting for age and working despite symptoms, high occupational noise levels were associated with a 1.72 times higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity (95% CI: 1.16–2.55). Half of food processing workers showed evidence of past SARS-CoV-2 infection, a prevalence five times higher than most of the United States population at the time of the study. Work environments with loud ambient noise may pose elevated risks for SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Our findings also highlight the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 among underserved and economically disadvantaged Latinx communities in the United States.

Seroepidemiology and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection among household members of food processing and farm workers in North Carolina

Background Racial and ethnic minorities have borne a disproportionate burden from COVID-19. Certain essential occupations, including food processing and farm work, employ large numbers of Hispanic migrant workers and have been shown to carry an especially high risk of infection. Methods We conducted an observational cohort study measuring the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and assessing risk factors for seropositivity among North Carolina food processing and farm workers and members of their households. Participants completed questionnaires and we collected blood samples and used an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to assess SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. Univariate and multivariate analyses were carried out to identify risk factors associated with seropositivity, using generalized estimating equations to account for household clustering. Findings Among the 218 participants, 94.5% were Hispanic, and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was 50.0%. Most seropositive individuals did not report a history of illness compatible with COVID-19. Attending church, having a prior history of COVID-19, having a seropositive household member, and speaking Spanish as one's primary language were associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity, while preventive behaviors were not. Interpretation These findings underscore the substantial burden of COVID-19 among a population of mostly Hispanic essential workers and their households in rural North Carolina. Our study contributes to a large body of evidence showing that Hispanic Americans have suffered a disproportionate COVID-19 burden. We also highlight the epidemiologic importance of viral transmission within the household.

Ethnoracial Disparities in SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in a Large Cohort of Individuals in Central North Carolina from April to December 2020.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused millions of deaths around the world within the past 2 years. Transmission within the United States has been heterogeneously distributed by geography and social factors with little data from North Carolina. Here, we describe results from a weekly cross-sectional study of 12,471 unique hospital remnant samples from 19 April to 26 December 2020 collected by four clinical sites within the University of North Carolina Health system, with a majority of samples from urban, outpatient populations in central North Carolina. We employed a Bayesian inference model to calculate SARS-CoV-2 spike protein immunoglobulin prevalence estimates and conditional odds ratios for seropositivity. Furthermore, we analyzed a subset of these seropositive samples for neutralizing antibodies. We observed an increase in seroprevalence from 2.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8 to 4.5) to 12.8 (95% CI, 10.6 to 15.2) over the course of the study. Latinx individuals had the highest odds ratio of SARS-CoV-2 exposure at 6.56 (95% CI, 4.66 to 9.44). Our findings aid in quantifying the degree of asymmetric SARS-CoV-2 exposure by ethnoracial grouping. We also find that 49% of a subset of seropositive individuals had detectable neutralizing antibodies, which was skewed toward those with recent respiratory infection symptoms. IMPORTANCE PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases underestimate true prevalence. Few robust community-level SARS-CoV-2 ethnoracial and overall prevalence estimates have been published for North Carolina in 2020. Mortality has been concentrated among ethnoracial minorities and may result from a high likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, which we observe was particularly high among Latinx individuals in North Carolina. Additionally, neutralizing antibody titers are a known correlate of protection. Our observation that development of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies may be inconsistent and dependent on severity of symptoms makes vaccination a high priority despite prior exposure.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in central North Carolina: Protocol for a population-based longitudinal cohort study and preliminary participant results.

Public health surveillance systems likely underestimate the true prevalence and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to limited access to testing and the high proportion of subclinical infections in community-based settings. This ongoing prospective, observational study aimed to generate accurate estimates of the prevalence and incidence of, and risk factors for, SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents of a central North Carolina county. From this cohort, we collected survey data and nasal swabs every two weeks and venous blood specimens every month. Nasal swabs were tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus (evidence of active infection), and serum specimens for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies (evidence of prior infection). As of June 23, 2021, we have enrolled a total of 153 participants from a county with an estimated 76,285 total residents. The anticipated study duration is at least 24 months, pending the evolution of the pandemic. Study data are being shared on a monthly basis with North Carolina state health authorities and future analyses aim to compare study data to state-wide metrics over time. Overall, the use of a probability-based sampling design and a well-characterized cohort will enable collection of critical data that can be used in planning and policy decisions for North Carolina and may be informative for other states with similar demographic characteristics.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Health Care Personnel and Their Household Contacts at a Tertiary Academic Medical Center: Protocol for a Longitudinal Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care personnel (HCP) are at high risk for exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. While personal protective equipment (PPE) may mitigate this risk, prospective data collection on its use and other risk factors for seroconversion in this population is needed. OBJECTIVE: The primary objectives of this study are to (1) determine the incidence of, and risk factors for, SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCP at a tertiary care medical center and (2) actively monitor PPE use, interactions between study participants via electronic sensors, secondary cases in households, and participant mental health and well-being. METHODS: To achieve these objectives, we designed a prospective, observational study of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCP and their household contacts at an academic tertiary care medical center in North Carolina, USA. Enrolled HCP completed frequent surveys on symptoms and work activities and provided serum and nasal samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing every 2 weeks. Additionally, interactions between participants and their movement within the clinical environment were captured with a smartphone app and Bluetooth sensors. Finally, a subset of participants' households was randomly selected every 2 weeks for further investigation, and enrolled households provided serum and nasal samples via at-home collection kits. RESULTS: As of December 31, 2020, 211 HCP and 53 household participants have been enrolled. Recruitment and follow-up are ongoing and expected to continue through September 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Much remains to be learned regarding the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCP and their household contacts. Through the use of a multifaceted prospective study design and a well-characterized cohort, we will collect critical information regarding SARS-CoV-2 transmission risks in the health care setting and its linkage to the community. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/25410.

Association of Simulated COVID-19 Vaccination and Nonpharmaceutical Interventions With Infections, Hospitalizations, and Mortality.

Importance: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has the potential to significantly reduce transmission and COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. The relative importance of vaccination strategies and nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) is not well understood. Objective: To assess the association of simulated COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and coverage scenarios with and without NPIs with infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Design, Setting, and Participants: An established agent-based decision analytical model was used to simulate COVID-19 transmission and progression from March 24, 2020, to September 23, 2021. The model simulated COVID-19 spread in North Carolina, a US state of 10.5 million people. A network of 1 017 720 agents was constructed from US Census data to represent the statewide population. Exposures: Scenarios of vaccine efficacy (50% and 90%), vaccine coverage (25%, 50%, and 75% at the end of a 6-month distribution period), and NPIs (reduced mobility, school closings, and use of face masks) maintained and removed during vaccine distribution. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risks of infection from the start of vaccine distribution and risk differences comparing scenarios. Outcome means and SDs were calculated across replications. Results: In the worst-case vaccination scenario (50% efficacy, 25% coverage), a mean (SD) of 2 231 134 (117 867) new infections occurred after vaccination began with NPIs removed, and a mean (SD) of 799 949 (60 279) new infections occurred with NPIs maintained during 11 months. In contrast, in the best-case scenario (90% efficacy, 75% coverage), a mean (SD) of 527 409 (40 637) new infections occurred with NPIs removed and a mean (SD) of 450 575 (32 716) new infections occurred with NPIs maintained. With NPIs removed, lower efficacy (50%) and higher coverage (75%) reduced infection risk by a greater magnitude than higher efficacy (90%) and lower coverage (25%) compared with the worst-case scenario (mean [SD] absolute risk reduction, 13% [1%] and 8% [1%], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: Simulation outcomes suggest that removing NPIs while vaccines are distributed may result in substantial increases in infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, as NPIs are removed, higher vaccination coverage with less efficacious vaccines can contribute to a larger reduction in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with more efficacious vaccines at lower coverage. These findings highlight the need for well-resourced and coordinated efforts to achieve high vaccine coverage and continued adherence to NPIs before many prepandemic activities can be resumed.

SARS-CoV-2 testing in North Carolina: Racial, ethnic, and geographic disparities.

SARS-CoV-2 testing data in North Carolina during the first three months of the state's COVID-19 pandemic were analyzed to determine if there were disparities among intersecting axes of identity including race, Latinx ethnicity, age, urban-rural residence, and residence in a medically underserved area. Demographic and residential data were used to reconstruct patterns of testing metrics (including tests per capita, positive tests per capita, and test positivity rate which is an indicator of sufficient testing) across race-ethnicity groups and urban-rural populations separately. Across the entire sample, 13.1% (38,750 of 295,642) of tests were positive. Within racial-ethnic groups, 11.5% of all tests were positive among non-Latinx (NL) Whites, 22.0% for NL Blacks, and 66.5% for people of Latinx ethnicity. The test positivity rate was higher among people living in rural areas across all racial-ethnic groups. These results suggest that in the first three months of the COVID-19 pandemic, access to COVID-19 testing in North Carolina was not evenly distributed across racial-ethnic groups, especially in Latinx, NL Black and other historically marginalized populations, and further disparities existed within these groups by gender, age, urban-rural status, and residence in a medically underserved area.

Estimation Without Representation: Early Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Seroprevalence Studies and the Path Forward.

The recent development and regulatory approval of a variety of serological assays indicating the presence of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has led to rapid and widespread implementation of seroprevalence studies. Accurate estimates of seroprevalence are needed to model transmission dynamics and estimate mortality rates. Furthermore, seroprevalence levels in a population help guide policy surrounding reopening efforts. The literature to date has focused heavily on issues surrounding the quality of seroprevalence tests and less on the sampling methods that ultimately drive the representativeness of resulting estimates. Seroprevalence studies based on convenience samples are being reported widely and extrapolated to larger populations for the estimation of total coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections, comparisons of prevalence across geographic regions, and estimation of mortality rates. In this viewpoint, we discuss the pitfalls that can arise with the use of convenience samples and offer guidance for moving towards more representative and timely population estimates of COVID-19 seroprevalence.